A very simple question.

[toddpianoworks]

You've clearly asserted that he was wrong in saying that God has never been confirmed to have done anything. What you don't seem to be providing is an example which would demonstrate that he's wrong. Why would you say he's wrong and then not give an example to support your claim?

Um..."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

There. He's wrong.

 

[Pesto]

A bible story does not constitute evidence.

 

[automan]

Um..."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

There. He's wrong.

A bible story does not constitute evidence.

It constitutes evidence if that's the only evidence you have, religion is based on 'Words' not 'Facts'.

 

[Pesto]

It constitutes evidence if that's the only evidence you have, religion is based on 'Words' not 'Facts'.

Then he'll have to do something to give it more credibility than the conflicting evidence.

 

[Beastt]

Um..."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

There. He's wrong.

Light poured out of the hatchways.
"I don't know," said the voice on th PA. "apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all." It cut off
There was a terrible ghastly silence.
There was a terrible ghastly noise.
There was a terrible ghastly silence.
The Vogon Constructor Fleet coasted away into the inky starry void.​

So there you have it; equal proof that the Earth was destroyed by the Vogons.

Or do you consider evidence to be of some importance here? Does it matter that the Earth hasn't been destroyed even after a book claims that it was?

If that matters, then you have the problem with your quote from a book. It not only claims God did those things but then goes into some detail regarding how it was done. And when we examine the detail, we find it to be inconsistent with the evidence.

Remember, I asked for an act which has been "confirmed" to have been performed by God, not just an unverified claim in an old book. You haven't been able to present a single one.

He is correct. God has never once in the entire history of man been confirmed to have done one single thing. And of all the things accredited to gods, every single one for which we have since confirmed the process has shown a distinct lack of action by any god. Gods don't control volcanos, plate tectonics, storms, disease, lightning, thunder, droughts or any of the other things once attributed to gods.

Show me credible evidence that the physical ever didn't exist.

Show me physical evidence that anything anywhere has ever been created. Give me just one example of anything actually being created rather than just being transformed from that which already exists.

Compared to the massive evidence, presented by reality, to the contrary; your statement extracted from an old book written by comparatively ignorant and apparently superstitious men, doesn't hold much merit.

 

[toddpianoworks]

Show me physical evidence that anything anywhere has ever been created. Give me just one example of anything actually being created rather than just being transformed from that which already exists.

Show you??? Come on! You have been shown.

Wanna go dig up some fossils for more proof?

Do you understand the energy levels of particles being emitted from a radioactive core? Can you determine how far those "energetic" particles would travel in the material.

And can you slice a halo and measure the halo ring diameters under a microscope?

Can you understand the elements and isotopes that the core material progresses through as it radioactively decays?

These halos by the way are found in the foundation stones in the earth's crust.

I'll wait for you to tell me I'm wrong before I present more facts.

 

[Nitron]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

 

[Lightcreated]

I do'nt believe in what my neighbor's believe in fack they all think i'm crazy because i talk about the LORD and the inpending judgement day that will shortly take place.
Let's face it people we are very very near the return of the LORD and i'm not talking 100 years in the future i'm talking in the next few years it's that close.

 

[toddpianoworks]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

Using an anti-creation website does not foster much, if any credibility. Obviously, since you do not agree with me, you go to sites and books that teach against the truth. And of course I would do the same.

If you want to try and prove anything wrong, try going to the opposite source for information. That holds up more than this weak method.

And I am willing to hold my end by providing evidence for creationion through evolutionists (or shall I say, ex-evolutionists).

 

[toddpianoworks]

Let's face it people we are very very near the return of the LORD and i'm not talking 100 years in the future i'm talking in the next few years it's that close.

Well, all we can do is guess. No one knows for sure.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ask yourself this,
who decided what you should believe?
because more often than not it was not you.

God did ---

[bible]Romans 8:29-30[/bible]

As we put it: We're Christians by election, and Baptists by conviction.

 

[Lightcreated]

Maybe you should specify that it was the person's parents, just in case people respond, "Yeah, it was God!"

Actually it is GOD's work if you are saved because you can't truely believe on the LORD
if he has'nt drawn you unto himself.
That's why he allowed lazorus to die he knew he was sick but HE was'nt looking for a healing the LORD was looking to perform a resorection.
By calling lazorus out of that tumb the LORD was telling every1 there as well as us today,1. HE is GOD himself because lazorus was a saved man and that meant he was in heaven, and who would ever want to leave heave?that mean's the LORD chose to bring him back and only GOD can raise the dead and give life, it's the same with our souls he does all the work with out any help from us at all, 2.A corp's can't do any thing, how can a corps do any thing to help it self? it can't JESUS does all the work. 3.HE was telling every1 there as well as us today HE is GOD because only GOD can raise the dead.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

Using an anti-creation website does not foster much, if any credibility. Obviously, since you do not agree with me, you go to sites and books that teach against the truth. And of course I would do the same.

If you want to try and prove anything wrong, try going to the opposite source for information. That holds up more than this weak method.

And I am willing to hold my end by providing evidence for creationion through evolutionists (or shall I say, ex-evolutionists).

I'd have to say a lot of "evolutionists" were once creationists. I was once a creationist, when I was like twelve. Does that mean my word holds up against creationism? No it doesn't, facts hold up against creationism. They operate without my input entirely. They have no prejudice to report to.

Also, if I made as much sa some of those people writing for AiG I would be a young earth creationist too. I bet what one person gets from donations alone, will make my future salary as a Scientist laughable.

 

[toddpianoworks]

I'd have to say a lot of "evolutionists" were once creationists. I was once a creationist, when I was like twelve. Does that mean my word holds up against creationism? No it doesn't, facts hold up against creationism. They operate without my input entirely. They have no prejudice to report to.

And now you probably think that evolution is all about science, and creation is all about faith. The truth is that creation is heavily supported by scientific evidence and evolution requires a great amount of "faith" to accept all it's theories.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

And now you probably think that evolution is all about science, and creation is all about faith. The truth is that creation is heavily supported by scientific evidence and evolution requires a great amount of "faith" to accept all it's theories.

Evolution is all about science, it's a fundamental branch of Biology. I know, I've studied it for a while, and have a year before I graduate with a degree in Biology.

I issue a challenge to you to raise five points against Evolution and five points supporting Biological creationism. These points must be direct, clearly defined, based on evidence(you must cite the evidence), be fasifiable, and pertaining specifically to Evolution. Which means, you may not ask questions about the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Atheism, or Morality. Furthermore, you must raise points against the current theory of Evolution, and based on current evidence. This means various quotes from a hundred years or more ago are probably going to be irrelevent. Don't try to switch the burden of proof, Evolution has ample evidence, and is agreed upon by virtually every Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, and Agnostic Biologists(experts) in the world. Thus it is Creationism, that needs to present evidence for it's case. If you don't meet these requirements, I will not debate you.

And based on a hundred college hours as a Biology major, I will debunk it.

 

[Beastt]

Show you??? Come on! You have been shown.

Wanna go dig up some fossils for more proof?

Do you understand the energy levels of particles being emitted from a radioactive core? Can you determine how far those "energetic" particles would travel in the material.

And can you slice a halo and measure the halo ring diameters under a microscope?

Can you understand the elements and isotopes that the core material progresses through as it radioactively decays?

These halos by the way are found in the foundation stones in the earth's crust.

I'll wait for you to tell me I'm wrong before I present more facts.

What does any of this have to do with creation? I've asked for even a single example of creation and you're talking about radioactive isotopes and fossils.

Is this perhaps your way of saying you can't present an example?

 

[Beastt]

Ask yourself this,
who decided what you should believe?
because more often than not it was not you.

God did ---

That's not what other Christians are constantly telling us and if I recall correctly, you've made the same assertion they provide. We're constantly told that we must first accept God and only then will God make himself known to us. He couldn't have chosen for you if you first had to choose him. So which is it? Does God choose us first and make himself known so that we will believe in him or do we have to believe in him first before he will make himself known to us?

So I'm thinking it must have been someone else.

Either that or the assertion that we have to accept God first is terribly flawed and completely incorrect.

 

[Beastt]

And now you probably think that evolution is all about science, and creation is all about faith. The truth is that creation is heavily supported by scientific evidence and evolution requires a great amount of "faith" to accept all it's theories.

This simply isn't true. I know it's what creationists tell other creationists and unsuspecting people who trust them. But it's not the case at all. The evidence thoroughly refutes creationism. All one needs to do to see how this works is talk to a creationist about what parts of science they think are flawed. An interesting pattern begins to emerge. They only find science to be flawed in precisely those areas where the Bible has addressed an issue open to science. In every other aspect of science, they're perfectly happy.

We don't see creationist claiming computer science is wrong. We don't see them challenging aerodynamics or fluid dynamics. They seem perfectly happy with thermodynamics, (until they find out it doesn't support them the way they tend to think it does) and they seem fine with electromagnetics as it applies to the appliances in their homes. The ONLY time they believe science is flawed is when science finds contrary to their interpretation of claims in the Bible.

Now what are the odds that science, with no real interest in religion, would just happen to be completely incorrect in only those areas addressed in the Bible?

And if evolution didn't comply with all pertinent credible evidence, it wouldn't be a theory and scientists would be running over the backs of other scientists to bring the evidence forward because the Nobel would be their's, hands down!

 

[automan]

Again you are too close to the truth Beastt, if you give them no way out they will just
move away, they will not think about it logically they will just stop thinking about it completely
and move to another post, this is how they maintain their faith because if logic overcame superstition
there would only be a need for one post then the discussion would end, logic would win,
unfortunately we are dealing with an irrational belief that defies all logic and it will not be overcome by common sense,
in fact common sense seem to just antagonize them, the more sense we throw at them the further behind
their God they hide, it's as if the more light we shine on them the further they recede into the darkness.

And me writing this will ensure the end of this post.

 

[Markus6]

(Joshua 10:12-13) Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon."​

(Chronicles 16:30) tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.​

(Psalms 104:5) Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.​

(Job 9:6) who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.​

Thanks for digging those up. I am perfectly able to admit that the biblical authors believed the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth, and God used special creation to create life. In fact a literal reading of Genesis portrays a world view completely different from our own (e.g. the firmament).

However, I don't think the authors got their beliefs from God (their views represent those of society at the time). Also in the bible God never teaches these things. They are in chapters about a different subject written from the perspective of humans who had little scientific knowledge of the world.

The fact that Christianity taught geocentrism for over 16-centuries and even executed and imprisoned those who attempted to demonstrate heliocentrism makes such an argument a bit disingenuous.

Whilst you are probably right can I ask who was executed?

Only after science clearly demonstrated that the Earth orbits the sun did Christianity change footing and begin claiming the Bible doesn't hold a stance of geocentrism.

It's very easy to make this seem like science versus christianity but that's looking at history quite selectively. It's more accurate to say it's the 'church' versus scientists and most of the time both the church and the scientists were christians.

This is a standard pattern with Christianity. It takes the Bible literally until science proves those claims to be untrue. Then, after much fuss, objection and arguing, Christianity alters it's "interpretation" of what the Bible says to find greater compliance with what science can demonstrate.

Again you can't treat 'christianity' as a person. After these scientific advances many christians put up no fuss, objection or arguments. To say all christians were interpreting Genesis completely literally before Darwin would also be inaccurate. Looking at Augustine's views on it I doubt he'd be that suprised by the theory of evolution.

This has happened with the geometry of the Earth, the heliocentric nature of the solar system and is now going on with evolution. Claiming one thing and then after you've been shown to be wrong, claiming you never argued otherwise simply isn't honest.

Do you have any sources for their being an issue with the church and the flatness of the earth?

From Late Antiquity, and from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread.[14] As in secular culture a small minority contended with the flatness of the Earth.

All three of these examples are of huge scientific discoveries that completely changed the way we look at the world. Practically everyone would have had an issue with adjusting. That the church, as a highly political, dogmatic institution, takes a bit longer is hardly suprising. Especially as our 'holy book' was written by flat earthers, geocentrists and creationists and people falsely believe it is the 'word of God'.

"The word of God" has become a euphamism for "Bible" among Christians. If you'd like examples it wouldn't take me long to come up with dozens and I'll gladly provide you with links.

Don't worry, I've seen plenty for myself and I am completely aware that you are right. The expression is still unbiblical and highly theologically inaccurate.

I agree it's not the word of God. But I'm not a Christian. Most Christians absolutely believe the Bible is God's word and the authors absolutely suggest that they were providing God's word which was presented to them through inspiration from God.

You may certainly hold a different view. But that being the case, your view is not representative of the standard Christian view.

How are you defining the standard christian view?

Whilst I may be in the minority, especially on here, I am not on my own. Just about every time somebody refers to the bible as the 'word of God' in origins theology they are pulled up for it.

I'd agree that some authors thought they were providing God's word but I'd probably limit that to the prophets and the law. The majority of the bible was written by people recording events. Whilst at points they were recording words that God spoke there is no reason to believe that they thought that their narration of the events was 'God's word'. The bible also contains songs written to and about God, and letters written to early churches. They can only accurately be described as the authors words, not God's.

Please not there is a difference between calling the bible 'God's word' and believing it is divinely inspired.